would you accept Constitutional Rape

We probably all agree that the bill of rights (as well as a good bit of the constitution) is supposed to embody the idea of ensuring the protection of people’s natural will (as opposed to suppression). I suppose most Americans will agree with this.

So imagine if the bill of rights included an amendment to protect my right to fulfill my natural reproductive drive … would you support it?

In the hands of ‘common sense’ this clause might work without disrupting a civil society. But as soon as someone starts twisting that clause, interpreting it to suit their own agenda, you could effectively end up with constitutional-rape.

Like this:

Related

2 responses

This is a good analogy because guns have always been associated with male reproductive organs. They both certainly *can* be used to violate other people.

Of course possession of a male organ already allows men to commit rape and many men do indeed use their organs to commit rape. In doing so they harm their victims and society as a whole. Being raped by a man is an ever present threat which every woman (and man) faces every day. And this is despite the laws which prohibit rape ….. unfortunately rapists choose to ignore the law.

These issues would make a similar argument in favour of the government forcibly surgically removing the reproductive organs from all men, or perhaps the less drastic measure of forcing all men to wear government issued chastity devices.

However, I’m guessing that most men (and most women for that matter) would argue that the statistically small percentage of men who do commit rape is not adequate grounds for anyone (including people in government) going around forcibly castrating all men, or forcibly fitting them with chastity devices.

This analogy fails on two points though.

1. In the ‘state gun control’ scenario the state keeps its own guns
2. Guns are not just used to commit violent acts, they are also used to prevent or deter violent acts, whereas male organs seldom deter or prevent rape.

When some horrific violent act involving guns is occurring in society most people call the cops. What they are actually doing is calling for good (we hope) people to come armed with guns, tasers, clubs etc

The people most likely to acquiesce to ‘gun control’ laws are also going to be ‘good people’. These guns owners are the people LEAST likely to commit violent acts and MOST likely to act as ‘cops’ and help to prevent or deter violent crimes in society. Just the KNOWLEDGE that there are good guys wandering about with guns (acting as undercover cops, if you will) is enough to deter many people from attempting violent crime.

And so when you think about it, state gun control will have the effect of greatly INCREASING the numbers of criminals with guns RELATIVE to ‘good guys’ with guns. In order to redress this balance the government would have to hugely increase the numbers of cops with guns (all at taxpayer’s expense of course). As with all prohibitions criminals will always get hold of guns anyway via the black market – which will also become HUGELY PROFITABLE market as a direct result of ‘gun control’. A more disarmed population will result in a more attractive prospect for those criminals willing to use guns in society.

Finally it must be pointed out that advocating for ‘state gun control’ is BY DEFINITION advocating for guns to be used against society to achieve good in society. If you advocate for ‘state gun control’ you are advocating for armed men acting on YOUR BEHALF to point guns at people in order to force them to give up their guns.

As with all social policies the issue of *morality* of the proposed policy is best understood by imagining YOURSELF behaving in the same way that you advocate for government to behave on your behalf. In this case if you advocate for gun control you need to imagine yourself going door to door and pointing a gun at each household and demanding they hand over their guns to you.

What if a household refuses to hand over their guns? What if they say they want to keep their guns for self defence against, for example, uncivilised people trespassing on their property and pointing guns at them while ordering them about?

What would you do? Would you threaten to drag them off and put them in a cage for disobeying you? What if they have children? What if they continue to resist your gun confiscation and kidnapping attempts? Are you prepared to shoot them?

If you are NOT prepared to behave in this way then you don’t really advocate state gun control…… you only THINK you do. ‘Gun control’ laws (as with all laws) can only be enforced by guns (and tasers, clubs and cages etc)

If you ARE prepared to behave this way then you are admitting that guns can (and should) be used to achieve good in society……. in which case you might like to ask why you are attempting to disarm otherwise law abiding citizens.

(FWIW it is predicted that guns will soon be able to be printed by 3-D printers anyway).

I must say that I did not intend on creating an analogy between guns and, you know.

But rather I was trying to create a metaphor that shows that:
A – a well intended idea (the 2nd amend)
B – can be twisted (unlimited stocking of arms)
C – leading to an anti-civil situation (a gun-wielding public space).